get_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, progress, result, and pending_approvals, and explains that pending_approvals are actions the agent paused on. No destructive behavior is implied, and it is clear that this is a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that first state the purpose and then provide key behavioral detail about pending_approvals. No filler words, good front-loading.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the return values (status, progress, result, pending_approvals) and the relationship to the 'approve' tool. It could mention error cases but is adequate for its simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not elaborate on the 'workflow_run_id' parameter beyond its name. The parameter is self-explanatory as an ID, but the description adds no additional context or formatting guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves status, progress, result, and pending approvals for an agent run. It distinguishes from siblings: 'approve' is for approving actions, 'run_goal' and 'schedule_goal' are for execution, while this tool is for retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use: to check run status and pending approvals. It mentions that pending approvals can be acted on with the 'approve' tool, providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.